March 3, 2012

Between them, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have as many children — 12 — as there were tribes of Israel. Ron Paul has five of his own, and in an early debate, perhaps unwilling to be outdone by Michele Bachmann’s fostering of dozens, Paul boasted that when he worked as a physician he delivered “4,000 babies.”

There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried. Their family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins, seem to convey a subliminal message that goes far beyond a father’s pride in being able to field his own basketball team. What the Republican front-runners seem to be saying is this: We are like the biblical patriarchs. As conservative religious believers, we take seriously the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply.

... (The appeal of Sarah Palin to so many Christian women was exactly this: She prioritized her fertility while juggling a big job and a husband who was frequently out of town. Her fans call her a Proverbs 31 woman, a reference to the biblical character who does it all — and who keeps herself looking good. Her price, the Bible says, is “above rubies.”)

I think this is a pretty common feeling. Much of what drives political passions in the U.S. are different kinds of white women trying to put each other down.

What's interesting is the almost complete kibosh in public discourse over more substantive fertility-related matters.

HISPANIC FERTILITY IN U.S. FOUND ABOVE NORM - NYTimes.comwww.nytimes.com/.../hispanic-fertility-in-us-found-above-norm.htmlDec 18, 1984 – Fertility among Hispanic women in the United States is nearly 50 ...''The fertility rate for women of Hispanic origin was 97.5 live births per 1000 ...

135 comments:

I doubt whether conscious suppression accounts for it entirely. For the avg WP/WSJ/Bloomberg knowledge worker like Ms. Miller it's more likely that Mexicans or Central Americans just never cross her mind. You can argue that's merely a consequence of PC enforcers and political consultitutes, but could be there's not yet a hook on which to hang some perfunctory op-ed copy, like maybe a new hit by an Oaxacan version of Lauryn Hill or Lady Gaga.

And here is Heather MacDonald in City Journal five years ago, helpfully taking us behind the numbers:

The Mexican teen birthrate is 93 births per every 1,000 girls, compared with 27 births for every 1,000 white girls, 17 births for every 1,000 Asian girls, and 65 births for every 1,000 black girls. To put these numbers into international perspective, Japan’s teen birthrate is 3.9, Italy’s is 6.9, and France’s is 10.

So pull out your pocketbooks:

Despite the strong family support, the prevalence of single parenting among Hispanics is producing the inevitable slide into the welfare system. “The girls aren’t marrying the guys, so they are married to the state,” Dr. Sanchez observes. Hispanics now dominate the federal Women, Infants, and Children free food program; Hispanic enrollment grew over 25 percent from 1996 to 2002, while black enrollment dropped 12 percent and white enrollment dropped 6.5 percent. Illegal immigrants can get WIC and other welfare programs for their American-born children. If Congress follows President Bush’s urging and grants amnesty to most of the 11 million illegal aliens in the country today, expect the welfare rolls to skyrocket as the parents themselves become eligible.

As HBD chick points out, one of the primary purposes of ideology is to control reproduction. This is why we have these ridiculous political ramblings about the settled issue of contraception. I think you're quite right in that there is friction between White liberal and conservative women. It would seem that among the upper classes at least, White conservatives are much more fecund than White liberals. I've personally heard many well-off White liberal women in stable relationships say that it's their responsibility to curb their fertility for the good of the planet; as if the ones who are actually causing overpopulation feel the same. White conservatives on the other hand seem to feel no such responsibility and happily have large families...

Actually, there were some more up-to-date statistics about hispanic fertility on this very blog. I wonder, ahem, what happened to the article revealing that Mexican have a higher fertility rate upon immigrating to the US than do their counterparts in Mexico.

Wow, liberal projection-ism just jumped the shark. We all know smugness is a feature of liberalism, but did a liberal just project her smugness onto... the fecundity of conservatives? So, conservatives having a big family and being full of love in the house is... smug?

"Smug fecundity" may be up there with Lee Siegel's "telegraphed whiteness" in the Orwellian lexicon of Liberal Projections.

Or maybe something like "Liberal Dislocations" might be better?

What induces a phrase like "smug fecundity" into print? A feminist's sterile horror of chthonic reproduction? Queer Malthusianism's shocked disdain for "breeders"? Rank class envy that somebody could have that many kids and still afford to send them all to the University of Pennsylvania? Or bellicose anti-Catholicism to force us to realize that the Earth Done Been Populated Already, Nitwits?

That's quite a poisoned pill of a phrase to drop, right after assuring us there's nothing *wrong* with having so many kids.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that . . . ."

Hell, I might have to find some way to drop "smug fecundity" myself. Maybe Madonna or Angelina should try it too. Hollywood prefers the sham brood to the real deal. "Smug fecundity" could become a warcry against the hoodsters trying to keep up with their celebrity betters by breeding instead of adopting in Africa like a classy dish would, or else using government contraceptives like a humble knowledge worker who knows her place.

Every time you bemoan how liberals don't care about these quality of life issues that stem from the dumbing down of people by cultivating and growing that class, I shake my head and hear Sally Field's voice in my head, but she says instead, "They hate you, they really, really hate you."

If they see Hispanics at all, it is as tools against us. They do not have their own autonomy. Not now at any rate.

Fertility? Ours is the only one they care about because, again, they hate us.

When Andrew Breitbart died, Matthew Yglesias said basically he was glad. Breitbart never killed, robbed, raped, or hurt anyone. Breitbart was just his enemy.

When Matthew Yglesias was beaten up in Washington last year, you said,"I'm terribly sorry to hear about this crime. Yglesias should make sure to take it easy for a few days after being punched in the head in case there is some delayed reaction affecting his balance -- e.g., don't ride a bicycle in traffic."

I have no doubt at all that if you died tomorrow, Yglesias would be happy. He probably wouldn't say what he said about Breitbart, but he wouldn't feel "terribly sorry" to hear about it.

LOL! What a hypocrite. The contempt women of her class feel for women who have lots of children (with or without a career) is palpable. Even with Nancy Pelosi, they are always careful to imply that she's from an earlier generation and had her kids before she figured out that a big career is better than a big family.

Hey, at least the Post won't need to hand-ring your readership replacing itself. From what I gather, the fertility rate of the Whiskey-Kudzu Bob-Kylie-Edgy Girl-Maya-Svigor-Josh- Jody sect is about .013 children per capita.

If one wants to bring back a biblical society, in which, presumably, one's fecund offspring will form a new aristocracy, perhaps eventually enjoying polygamy, then it makes sense to encourage the 3rd world-ization of North America. It's hard to be a prolific aristocrat or patriarch in a bourgeois society.

Think of it practically, without cheap labor how can one afford the nannies, maids and gardeners that would make a child-rich, wealthy lifestyle desirable or possible?

A huge, huge surprise! Steve's readers would have never suspected. From Wikipedia on Lisa Miller: "Miller was raised in a secular Jewish home ... Miller was married to her husband in an interfaith ceremony ... After the birth of her daughter, Miller joined a Jewish Temple for reasons of "blood and history and culture". She describes this religious community as a "progressive, inclusive congregation."

Maybe not entirely inclusive, it would seem? Damn. As a half Jew myself, I really hate seeing Jews being so brazen about it.

Perhaps I missed it, but I’m surprised you haven’t found this story worthy of comment yet. So, how about a hat tip to Secretary Sebelius for pointing out the hbd elephant in the middle of the Obama administration’s recent dustup with the Catholics? [link: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-decrease-human-beings-will-cover-cost-contraception-mandate] If somebody really forces her to defend her statements, how does she wriggle out of the inheritability noose without knocking over the wobbly AA stool she’s perched on? “Yes, all kids are a drain on the government purse.” I don’t think see that slogan selling too many Obama12 bumper stickers. Or (what I think she was really winking at), “No, not all kids, just those whose parents lack the intelligence and discipline to use contraception conscientiously.” I’m with you so far kseb, but please elaborate on why this is so without stepping on any hbd landmines. And, while you’re at it, why don’t you provide some insight into who is going to pick up the ‘fecundity’ slack? Those who do use contraception? That seems pretty fail-safe. I suppose she could play her immigration card here, though I don’t want to imagine how twisted the logic would have to get to justify the admin’s laissez faire attitude toward illegals (and their American-as-jalapeno-pie offspring). The Catholics would be the obvious choice to turn up the heat. They could thrash kseb pretty good with the Stephanie-grace stick, but given the institutional calculus (ie, growth of church in emerging markets), I suspect they need to be very careful about opening that pinata of worms.

@anon 12:06 PMI knew right away, without wikipedia, that Lisa 'miller' was as Anglo-Saxon as Judith "Miller" or Jon "Stewart" or Mike "Wallace".

I have never seen a gentile liberal express such barely contained hatred/fear of fertile gentiles or any town, city, country or organization that dare remain majority white and not voluntarily dismantle itself.

This is really a great post because it shows the huge divide between whites in this nation. All you have to do is read the comments at the Washington Post on the original article and the ones that will appear at iSteve to see the disconnect between us.

Steve correctly points out how the MSM never mentions NAM fertility, while they criticize whites with big families. Here is a great comment from a reader at the Post.

We've already done that "be fruitful and multiply" bit. We don't have an agrarian, nomadic culture anymore. It's irresponsible to have more children than you have time for or can afford.

Here is what I fund funny about this comment

First, all those candidates like Romney CAN AFFORD their kids. It is the great wave of third world migrants who cannot afford their kids.

Second, he is right that we no longer have an agrarian culture anymore, yet I am sure he has no objections to importing Mexican peasants by the millions.

There really needs to be a way to break the US up into multiple nations and allow folks to move to those parts where there is a batter fit. Just like Canada and the US are great friends, the largest trading partners in the world and whose citizens can easily mingle with one another, I would like to see a US split with multiple friendly nations that can interact with one another, but still have autonomy over their laws and ways of dealing with life's issues. I don't think this divide is ever going to go away and we'd proabably all be happier if we could live in peace next to each other like Canada and the US.

If one wants to bring back a biblical society, in which, presumably, one's fecund offspring will form a new aristocracy, perhaps eventually enjoying polygamy, then it makes sense to encourage the 3rd world-ization of North America. It's hard to be a prolific aristocrat or patriarch in a bourgeois society.

Think of it practically, without cheap labor how can one afford the nannies, maids and gardeners that would make a child-rich, wealthy lifestyle desirable or possible?

By treating domestic service with the same respect and seriousness as a prestigious internship and respecting wives and mothers as real adults doing real work. But in order to do this, you'd have to give women real power and take the private household seriously, and everyone hates women and children too much for that.

If only Pat had whispered some of his good ideas into The Gipper's ear as he lay asleep in the White House, back in the days when Buchanan ran wild and free down its hallways at night. How did he let the 1986 amnesty pass on his watch? Did fending off the intrusive questions of Dan Rather, Mike Wallis and Sam Donaldson consume all his attention as Director of Communications? Had wily George H. W. Bush out schemed him?

...like Canada and the US are great friends, the largest trading partners in the world and whose citizens can easily mingle with one another, I would like to see a US split with multiple friendly nations that can interact with one another, but still have autonomy over their laws and ways of dealing with life's issues. I don't think this divide is ever going to go away and we'd proabably all be happier if we could live in peace next to each other...

I have long felt that a peaceful breakup of the nation is the very BEST outcome that we can possibly hope for as we confront our impending demographic doom.

Our problem is going to be in supporting all the NAMs of average IQ 80 - by rights, they would go with the Blue States [and/or the Blue Counties], but there simply aren't enough Blue Whites to provide the tax payments necessary to feed, cloth, and put roofs over the heads of all of the Blue State NAMs.

I.e. the Blue State whites have to have Red State white fecundity in order to pay for the Blue State NAM welfare system.

Mr. Sailer neglected to include the next parapgraph from Miller's article that makes clear that her concerns stem from feminist principles rather than Jewish anti-Gentile bias. No surprise that the Jew-haters here would jump to the bias conclusion, though.

"Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence — because that’s what God wants."

They don't hate Jews as much as they hate women though! At least people like Lisa Miller acknowledges there is a real conflict between in modern society between womanhood and adulthood, with no easy answers. Her answer - choose adulthood - is white-hating and dysgenic, sure, but it's an answer. You guys think the problem can be solved with homeschool co-ops or something, because you don't recognize there is actually a problem.

same old, same old. europeans should not be religious, everybody else is welcome to be complete religious nutjobs. europeans should not have children, everybody else is welcome to have as many as they want. even better if europeans are required to support them.

and yeah, it's usually politically active jewish people writing articles like this or talking about it on television. it's easy to see once you know what their names are or what they've changed their names to within the last 70 years in order to "hide" in plain sight. once you can reliably identify them simply by their name - not needing to see anything else, just their name - reading the news becomes a shock. the intense hostility is overwhelming.

the first commenter here is correct: people like this don't even see mexicans, or if they do, they don't see them as anything other than weapons against europeans.

european liberals are playing the status game which steve has identified, but jewish liberals are not. they are filled with genuine hatred - which they might not even be able to explain to themselves. their knee jerk reaction to seeing strong, happy, successful europeans is revulsion and loathing.

one NFL analyst described seeing tim tebow's family as disgusting, akin to seeing a nazi rally. no word on what he thinks of some of the other, more, ahem, "vibrant", players and their huge, sprawling collection of leeches, single mothers with 4 kids and 4 differernt fathers, and various hangers on.

Ho hum. The same people bashing conservative, white fertility are the same people demanding open borders, unrestricted immigration, and amnesty. I couldn't give a shit what they say.

Blue State whites have to have Red State white fecundity in order to pay for the Blue State NAM welfare system.

Problem is that even the Red States are rapidly getting swamped by Third World immigrants - Arizona, Nevada, Utah, even Kansas. Even in such places young parents, to own a decent home in a safe neighborhood, frequently have hour-long commutes wasting a fortune in time and gas. White, Red State fecundity is falling rapidly, and the white middle class has no acceptable way to organize on behalf of their own interests. We need a political interest group independent of the Republican Party, and we need it quickly - one the speaks explicitly and unapologetically for whites.

"Much of what drives political passions in the U.S. are different kinds of white women trying to put each other down."

If only. Too many men care about this issue and they are doing most of the arguing. Nothing wrong with that.

It's less about women trying to win status points and more about raw hatred and anger that has been mostly coming from one side and for rational reasons.

Two generations since the sexual revolution, some consequences have finally started to become visible: a higher standard of living due to a small family comes at the expense of being a smaller force in the world compared to the fecund conservative Christians.

She's certainly welcome to rag on Tom Lantos or Steven Spielberg or even Noam Chomsky...sound of crickets chirping...

No, the ADL has even frightened the crickets into silence.

Here's a feminist angle on Lisa Miller's tirade: who the fuck is she to question the intelligence of Karen Santorum, Ann Romney, or any other white woman who chooses to have lots of kids? Her writing suggests that women are all basically dumbshits who, in an age when abortion and birth control options are absolutely everywhere, need to be told that they don't have to have all those children. Maybe they wanted all those children. Maybe they find joy in bringing them into the world and raising them to be responsible adults.

So she's anti-woman while pretending to be a feminist, and she's an ethnocentric Jew telling a devout Mormon and a devout Catholic to stop having all those kids! How, I wonder, would she respond if Romney or Santorum told all those Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn to stop being so fecund.

"Romney, Santorum and archaic ideas on fertility By Lisa Miller, Published: March 2

Between them, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have as many children — 12 — as there were tribes of Israel. Ron Paul has five of his own, and in an early debate, perhaps unwilling to be outdone by Michele Bachmann’s fostering of dozens, Paul boasted that when he worked as a physician he delivered “4,000 babies.”

There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried. Their family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins, seem to convey a subliminal message that goes far beyond a father’s pride in being able to field his own basketball team. What the Republican front-runners seem to be saying is this: We are like the biblical patriarchs. As conservative religious believers, we take seriously the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply.

... (The appeal of Sarah Palin to so many Christian women was exactly this: She prioritized her fertility while juggling a big job and a husband who was frequently out of town. Her fans call her a Proverbs 31 woman, a reference to the biblical character who does it all — and who keeps herself looking good. Her price, the Bible says, is “above rubies.”)

I think this is a pretty common feeling. Much of what drives political passions in the U.S. are different kinds of white women trying to put each other down.------------------Yes! Just what I've been saying.

Hispanic fertility is due mainly to 16 year olds having kids, dropping out. It is subsidized by depressing White fertility through high taxes and high costs of living, and is thus unsustainable. Worse, like a highly leveraged company, it is vulnerable to system shocks like gas/oil hikes if you believe "peak oil" or at least cheap oil has passed by due to Chinese and developing world consumption. For example, over 95% of Santa Ana Unified kids qualify for free/reduced meals, so much so that the district got a waiver from the USDA to provide all meals free. Or, put another way, Mexicans can't afford to feed their kids.

White Upper class women generally don't like White fertility because it is viewed as lower class (aka "Mexican") and icky, like a family history of owning slaves or something. There is also jealousy, and endless anxiety over having "the correct" beliefs, partner, number of kids, child-raising methods (Eagle Dads and Tiger Moms or French Moms or whatever the WSJ is pushing today).

Slight aside, as the Journal has courted women and dumped business news, it has really taken a big slide downhill. The Daily Mail does female gossip better and more profitably (the #1 US newspaper site even though it is a UK paper). The Journal today reads like a bastard cross between The Economist and People.

As far as "the Jews" go they are ground zero in self-extinction. Reproductive rates of liberal Jews are astonishingly low. For those who don't like Jews, wait twenty years, there won't be any more.

Let me add, the Blue Dreams of solar panels, high speed rail (Brown wants to spend over $200 billion, IIRC), recycling everywhere, save the Gay Whales (and let them marry) will run straight into the Hispanic Underclass consuming all those resources. Their votes are not cheap -- they require sacrificing the very strong, Utopian, Puritan-Progressive dreams.

That culture is unlikely to change, and unlike Derbyshire I don't see the Elites becoming "racist" rather engaging in what Steve has hinted at: huge stolen generation type efforts to re-engineer Mexicans into SWPL folks who generate a lot of money for Green Dreams. So warehouse kids in massive boarding schools where they are doped up and hooked up to "learning machines" to increase their skills -- that's a sci-fi dystopia.

While Miller is obviously a hypocrite with ulterior motives, I must admit large families annoy me for the precise reason that they are crowding out me and mine. Upper middle class whites rarely have more than 2 or 3 kids. I miss old fashioned protestants, calvinist types. The sort that managed to have only 3 kids even in the pre-contraception era. People who felt responsibility to raise quality offspring over numerous offspring. It seems the evangelicals and Catholics have taken over the right to its detriment.

Instead of whites engaging in a fertility race or idealizing fertility just to avoid being crowded out, we should be shaming groups like latinos or hasidics for their high birthrates. High birthrates drive down the standard of living because it increases economic competition. Crowds and sprawl sucks. Imagine how much more pleasant the planet would be with only 2 billion people.

Lisa Miller is just glad she doesn't have to work one-third as hard as all those oppressed stay-at-home women of the Bible, whether fertile or not.

Who wouldn't be? That's healthy and normal. You people keep trying to make drudgery and toil in the domestic sphere somehow magically different from drudgery and toil elsewhere. It's not. People will always try to avoid it and it will always be low-status to get stuck with it. THAT'S why women like Mrs. Santorum and Mrs. Romney aren't respected; they're dong low status work.

"As far as "the Jews" go they are ground zero in self-extinction. Reproductive rates of liberal Jews are astonishingly low. For those who don't like Jews, wait twenty years, there won't be any more."

All the parents of Jewish 8-year-olds would love to know about this. Their kids are going to be dead before they're even 30? Anything they can do about it, Whiskey?

Average Jewish fertility is low (though probably not much lower than non-Jewish white fertility), but Hasidic Jews have one of the highest birthrates in the country. Again, how would Miller react if a Protestant or Catholic journalist complained about their fecundity?

Whiskey likes to put his twist on everything. The latest theory on the death of the West has been placed onto the 'Calvinists', see Ilana Mercer and others. But I see Whiskey has modified this to the 'Puritans'.

So the combination of white women and Puritans is what is killing our civilization.

Now, whiskey how do we deal with it, deportations, conversions, reeducation?

Mrs Santorum, maybe, but Mrs Romney? She's rich. I doubt that she has done any drudgery that she didn't want to do since she got married. Don't you think the Romneys had household help, including probably at least a maid and a nanny/au pair, when her children were young?

Women who are rich and unencumbered by career ambitions probably have it easier than any other group when it comes to avoiding the boredom and drudgery of bringing up a bunch of kids and running a big household. They can pick and choose the domestic things they want to do (if any) and leave the rest to servants.

You'd think they'd all have three or more kids ... and maybe they do for all I know. How fecund are the very rich?

Marlowe: If only Pat had whispered some of his good ideas into The Gipper's ear as he lay asleep in the White House, back in the days when Buchanan ran wild and free down its hallways at night. How did he let the 1986 amnesty pass on his watch?...Had wily George H. W. Bush out schemed him?

It would be nice if all the "excitable" anti-Immigrationists who comment here bothered learning the true history of their topic...

It's certainly correct that Buchanan was the strongest rightwing voice in the Reagan Administration, and indeed had been brought onboard to mollify conservatives concerned that Reagan might be getting "soft". But in that era, Buchanan was still strongly pro-immigration, and in fact publicly denounced the proposed 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Amnesty Bill as being "mean spirited" against illegal immigrants and far too harsh in its crackdown against undocumented Mexicans. Buchanan and all his fellow conservatives had *always* been pro-immigration/pro-Hispanic, for lots of different reasons.

And that attitude certainly continued into the 1990s. For example, Buchanan's first published book was his fervently rightwing autobiography "Right from the Beginning." In it, he lavished praise on Mexican illegal immigrants...

morleysafer"I doubt whether conscious suppression accounts for it entirely. For the avg WP/WSJ/Bloomberg knowledge worker like Ms. Miller it's more likely that Mexicans or Central Americans just never cross her mind."

I think that's probably true...but by the same token white fertility does cross their mind and in a consistently anti-natal direction.

I am old enough to remember the overpopulation fears of the 1970s, as well as the terror of the environmental catastrophe that would result.

It all went out the window with mass immigration boosterism. To oppose it would be racist. My dad, once an advocate of "Zero Population Growth," chided me when I brought up the subject, such a xenophiliac is he.

But things will change when the golden goose has been killed, cooked, and eaten.

RKU wrote, "And that attitude certainly continued into the 1990s. For example, Buchanan's first published book was his fervently rightwing autobiography "Right from the Beginning." In it, he lavished praise on Mexican illegal immigrants..."

Pat Buchanan was also a Free Trader in the 1980s, but changed his views after he realized what was happening. He might have been pro Mexivasion in the 1980s too, but when he ran for President in 1992, he was demanding more border control.

I always felt Buchanan was a legitimate voice on trade given his latter life conversion. Now if what RKU writes is true about PB's immigration stance, then I think it makes his current positions more legitimate as well. I respect people who are able to reexamine issues and change their views over time when evidence to the contrary presents itself.

Don't you think the Romneys had household help, including probably at least a maid and a nanny/au pair, when her children were young?

Yes and no.

They are high profile and ambitious. Therefore all their domestic help would have had to be legal. That doesn't mean legal immigrants, it means tax compliant. Legal domestic help does not offer a good return for effort and money. However, they are high-status Mormons. The Mormons have a social structure which supports mothers at home; the Romneys would have benefited from this.

One of the ways it's very obvious none of you take this seriously is you have no idea how domestic service works, how it compares to other countries, nor about the real support in childrearing provided by LDS and how this relates to their comparative higher fertility.

"Translation: I wish everyone were an undersexed poindexter like myself."

I have no clue whether my ancestors were undersexed or not. I kinda doubt it, considering there are two fairly reliable methods to avoid excess fertility even without any forms of contraception. All they require is a bit of planning, restraint and intelligence, which is too much to ask for some I suppose.

But even if they were, they were hard working people who cared about society. Can't really say those kind of values are idealized anymore. Maybe society could use some more "undersexed poindexters" instead of overly fecund Guatemalan 16 year olds or self-indulgent evangelicals...

You people keep trying to make drudgery and toil in the domestic sphere somehow magically different from drudgery and toil elsewhere. It's not.

Whether your life is "drudgery and toil" or a bed or roses largely exists in your own mind. Based on the comments you have been leaving here, I get the impression that your life will always suck.

Being a parent (not just a mom, but a dad too) is hard work. Being a doctor is hard work. Being an engineer is hard work. It does not have to be "drudgery and toil" though. Happiness and contentment come from within.

"... but could be there's not yet a hook on which to hang some perfunctory op-ed copy, like maybe a new hit by an Oaxacan version of Lauryn Hill or Lady Gaga."

dogzma replied...

"Are you unaware of all the female pop stars in el mundo hispano or are you saying she'd have to be a crossover sensation like Selena?"

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. 'morleysafer's' comment was a nice, smartass swipe at the cultural elitism of the author of the Washington Post piece. Obviously, for his joke to work, his hypothetical Oaxacan Lauryn Hill or Lady Gaga would have to be a trendy American pop star and darling of elite NE Corridor critics/journos/taste-makers.

Sure, Latin pop princesses abound in Hispanic media. But 'morleysafer's' point is that the author of the Washington Post piece probably isn't consciously suppressing Hispanic fertility rates; it's more likely that Oaxacans just never cross her mind (and won't until the NYT & the Village Voice start hyping the Oaxacan Regina Spektor, or until the Knicks sign the Oaxacan Jeremy Lin and he drops 38 points on Kobe).

"I doubt whether conscious suppression accounts for it entirely. For the avg WP/WSJ/Bloomberg knowledge worker like Ms. Miller it's more likely that Mexicans or Central Americans just never cross her mind. You can argue that's merely a consequence of PC enforcers and political consultitutes, but could be there's not yet a hook on which to hang some perfunctory op-ed copy, like maybe a new hit by an Oaxacan version of Lauryn Hill or Lady Gaga."

Yeah, elite, Manhattan/Northeastern Corridor opinion makers like Ms. Miller don't usually have much first hand experience with Mexicans and Central Americans, as people in other parts of the United States do. Mexican and Central American immigration is a fairly new thing in New York and Washington, D.C. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans have been a part of the New York fabric for eons, but Mexicans are, for the most part, new arrivals.

That's why there were all those NYT/WSJ/Bloomberg pieces five or six years ago about the new wave of "hot new, trendy AUTHENTIC Mexican restaurants" that were springing up all over New York. The articles would always open with lines like: "you don't have to fly to LA if you want AUTHENTIC Mexican food anymore!"

For people like wealthy Manhattanites and Bethesdans, "Latino" is synonymous with "Caribbean." When they rhapsodize about the "vibrant" diversity that Latinos bring, they tend to be thinking of things like chorizo, and salsa dancers dressed to the nines, and the late Celia Cruz, or the late Tito Puente playing his drums with his high-energy Salsa band, replete with big horn and rhythm sections -- things that actually are, well, pretty vibrant.

They're generally not thinking of Mariachi bands, or of Tejano, or of Mexican polka, or of the same kind of "Latino" culture that people in places like California, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona or the Southwest side of Chicago--places that are ground zero for mestizo Mexican immigration--interact with every day (not that there's anything wrong with Mariachi or Mexican polka -- there isn't).

Anonymous 3/3/12 5:45 PM said..." Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence — because that’s what God wants."

It's what nature wants, and what the survival of the species demands.

Doing a bit if reification there I see. Nature does not have desires, and the survival of the species only requires that some portion of the current ~7B humans on the planet continue to reproduce. If the Bushmen of the Kalahari were to survive and everyone else were wiped out, the species would still have survived.

"For the avg WP/WSJ/Bloomberg knowledge worker like Ms. Miller it's more likely that Mexicans or Central Americans just never cross her mind."

I'm sure that plenty of people like Ms Miller have had to think about Mexicans or Central Americans when choosing their domestic help. But how many of them have ever asked the cleaning lady about her kids?

It's a fair point but have you noticed how Hispanic chanteuses tend to be either hemispherically exotic (Arab-Colombian Shakira) or Disney by-the-numbers focus-group bait (the Bieber girl)? Norteno is huge yet Selena--technically Tejana, as duly observed by Gov. George W. Bush--only crossed over after being gunned down by her music cartel. I never meant to deride the mega-dinero riding on Latin music, merely pointing out that a Washingtonian knowledge manipulator/symbol worker is often the product of sorting and SuperZIPs and doesn't need to have a clue about any of that. Taboos are, axiomatically, in conflict with an informed public, etc.

Lisa Miller's article is massive Jewish projection on gentiles. Assimilated Jews like Miller both in Israel and the USA know that they are going extinct and it freaks them out.

Seculars like Lisa are preaching Jew-on-Jew community segregation in Israel to keep arch-fundie Jews away from them.

They are trying to get welfare cut off to the arch-fundie Jews to starve their children out and force their parents to go to work in greater numbers and be assimilated.

They are fighting to get rid of conscientious objector statutes to force arch-fundie Jews into the Jewish army where they can be broken to the secular mold.

Some of this Jewish civil war is beginning to leak out in America. Consider Pearlperry Rich's string of appearances on secular Jewish-produced TV shows and Deborah Feldman's new book, published by a secular Jewish publishing companies, or the recent uproar about Jewish gender-segregated buses in NYC and Israel.

This would never have happened just a few years ago. The women would have been deemed Jewish race traitors ("mosers" in Jewish law) and their stories suppressed.

or the recent uproar about Jewish gender-segregated buses in NYC and Israel.

but no uproar - and no NYT articles - about the 80+ rabbis caught molesting children and.. .here's the killer - publishing an ad in a yiddish paper, signed by 55 rabis, advocating DEATH to any jew who 'ratted' on the rabbis - the new york post was the only ones to pick it up - the NYT is still busy recycling catholic priest stories from the 50s.

Rural whites, rationally, considered gun ownership to be a good form of self-defense in areas where police response times were slow, the chance of accidentally plugging a bystander were low, and they had practice with guns for hunting...

Metropolitan whites, rationally, felt that the cops getting guns out of the hands of minorities was a better goal, but they didn't have any acceptable way to express this in public, so their arguments were generally couched in terms of the pressing need to disarm those vicious white Republicans in the hinterlands before they kill us all.

This is precisely what is going here as well. It's not white fecundity in the hinterlands that really bothers Ms. Miller. It's the more alarming fecundity of other groups closer to home. But she cannot write or even think that; therefore a screed like that.

So Buchanan's autobiography ought to be titled "Right from the beginning...of 1992"? Perhaps while chief hatchet man for Dutch he had not yet shrugged off the teaching of his dark master, Richard Milhous Nixon, who kept a lanky Chinese woman tucked away on a houseboat up a remote canal. Only Nixon could go to China...Or maybe Pat failed to realize that there are Catholics and then there are Catholics.

"Average Jewish fertility is low ... but Hasidic Jews have one of the highest birthrates in the country"

It may surprise the Sailer site Jew haters that secular Jews are deeply discomfited by haredi and hasidic fecundity. It's an even bigger problem in Israel, which the liberal newspaper Haaretz covers intermittently. Secular Jews are willing to criticize it among themselves, but I doubt the Jewish organizations queried by the media would take kindly to non-Jews doing so. Jewish organizations exist to have their hackles up, but I'm not sure that a survey of rank-and-file Jews would be so hostile.

"For people like wealthy Manhattanites and Bethesdans, 'Latino is synonymous with 'Caribbean. When they rhapsodize about the 'vibrant' diversity that Latinos bring, they tend to be thinking of...things that actually are, well, pretty vibrant."

Time to wheel out Sayyid Qutb, executed theorist of the Muslim Brotherhood, yet again (my emboldening):

" ... [the] family provides the environment under which human values and morals develop and grow in the new generation; these values and morals cannot exist apart from the family unit. If, on the other hand, free sexual relationships and illegitimate children become the basis of a society, and if the relationship between man and woman is based on lust, passion and impulse, and the division of work is not based on family responsibility and natural gifts; if woman’s role is merely to be attractive, sexy and flirtatious, and if woman is freed from her basic responsibility of bringing up children; and if, on her own or under social demand, she prefers to become a hostess or a stewardess in a hotel or ship or air company, thus using her ability for material productivity rather than the training of human beings, because material production is considered to be more important, more valuable and more honourable than the development of human character, then such a civilisation is ‘backward’ from the human point of view ..."

"In any event, with their fecundity, this is what a substantial percentage of future American Caucasians are going to be."

No. Those few lower class whites who have lots of kids (which means no more than 4) join the military for their basic career training as do many of their children.

As to the anonymous asserting that having children in your late 20s or early 30s isn't sufficient: What kind of crack are you on? If by some stretch of the imagination whites wanted a substantial and quick increase in population, then having 1 child every two years from age 18 to your early 30s would be beneficial. However, most people are thinking in terms of having 4 vs 1 or 2 children not in the sense of repopulating the earth.

Although, you could in theory get a fast surge in your numbers by convincing ever how many young girls to emulate the Duggars. Then to control the floodgate you've opened, the children of these women go back to the more typical and manageable family of 4 that can easily be had after the mother gets her degree.

A) True, if it's Tuesday, and we're talking about forcing private organizations to do things they morally oppose.

B) False, if it's Thursday, and we're talking about how the USA needs the children of all those illegal, illiterate Mexican peasants to bear the financial burden of the welfare state with their high school dropout educations, burger flipping jobs, and 6 dependent deductions.

Basic interest in Hispanics is not one of the coastal elite's strong suits, though they have specialists to interpret the consumer demos. There is a screenwriter/producer guy who's been off on a tear on Twitter since the Breitbart story (essentially calling his hometown Hypocrisy Central & taking all comers)--anyway among several other scathing things he tweeted was this: "Just try writing a pilot with a Latino lead. Good luck if you can't get Jimmy Smits. [profanities]" Seeing this I instantly thought of the early scene in "The Player" where Larry Levy is coming up with movie pitches based on random headlines in the day's paper. The eternal hunt for white whales is just the flip side.

Big Bill said,"Seculars like Lisa are preaching Jew-on-Jew community segregation in Israel to keep arch-fundie Jews away from them.

They are trying to get welfare cut off to the arch-fundie Jews to starve their children out and force their parents to go to work in greater numbers and be assimilated.

They are fighting to get rid of conscientious objector statutes to force arch-fundie Jews into the Jewish army where they can be broken to the secular mold.

Some of this Jewish civil war is beginning to leak out in America."

Good points.

About Steve's point that some of this is a fight between women... I don't see that at all.In order are the people who most often talk about and argue over fecundity:1. Conservative men and liberal women tied.2. Liberal Men3. Conservative Women with few children4. Older mothers of large families5. Younger mothers of large families (almost never)

Mothers of large families are usually poorer than other women, especially while they are raising them. They usually lack the confidence as a result, not to mention time among other things, to do what Steve alleges.

You know what is so sad about ignoring stereotypes? We've had voluminous chatter about Andrew Breitbart and his personality and nary a single comment pointing out the fun and obvious: Breitbart was a living embodiment of the Irish stereotype! At least Lawrence Auster discussed his looks which is always fun.

Famous video of the sole Breitbart overcoming and shouting down a crowd as only an Irish can:http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-breitbart-confronts-occupy-crowd-at-cpac-demands-they-stop-raping-people/

From Wikipedia on Lisa Miller: "Miller was raised in a secular Jewish home ... Miller was married to her husband in an interfaith ceremony ... After the birth of her daughter, Miller joined a Jewish Temple for reasons of "blood and history and culture"".

One might almost call her faith a "Religion of the Blood". I wonder if Lisa Miller realizes that she kinda sounds like Alfred Rosenberg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg

How would Lisa Miller describe a white gentile man who decided to join some particular church for reasons of "blood, history, and culture"?

So you've never heard of natural family planning or the old pull out method? I assume that is how people prevented excess children back in the day. I've heard of couples using both methods today too, with success.

"I would like to see a US split with multiple friendly nations that can interact with one another, but still have autonomy over their laws and ways of dealing with life's issues. I don't think this divide is ever going to go away and we'd proabably all be happier if we could live in peace next to each other like Canada and the US."

It won't work. The DWLs will just move into the Whitopias (telling themselves they are only looking for "good schools" or vague "quality of life issues") and when they get there, immediately begin agitating for the political policies foreordained to reproduce the "poor schools" and "quality of life issues" they fled.

" I miss old fashioned protestants, calvinist types. The sort that managed to have only 3 kids even in the pre-contraception era."

Those folks did not have only 3 kids in the pre contraception era. Upper class men with few children were whore mongers. Yeah, wifey didn't get pregnant because he wasn't sleeping with her. He didn't divorce her. Kids were brought up well and they put a proper face forward. When kings and their wives had large families, it was referred to as a happy marriage. When a king and his wife didn't have a bunch of kids, well, it wasn't continent chastity that limited the number of his legitimate children.

On February 21, the Supreme Court struck down the so-called Tal Law, under which ultra-Orthodox men studying at yeshivas were granted a draft exemption. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/after-50-years-feud-between-two-ultra-orthodox-dynasties-is-quietly-resolved-1.416285

Truth said..."Hey, at least the Post won't need to hand-ring your readership replacing itself. From what I gather, the fertility rate of the Whiskey-Kudzu Bob-Kylie-Edgy Girl-Maya-Svigor-Josh- Jody sect is about .013 children per capita."

Sir, it is March. It's foolish to count chickens before September. Right now, they are still eggs. Hundreds of fresh eggs.

We've already done that "be fruitful and multiply" bit. We don't have an agrarian, nomadic culture anymore. It's irresponsible to have more children than you have time for or can afford.

Yeah, liberals hate the Duggars, who pay their way and seem to be raising their kids well. They found other reasons to hate them. I think "carbon footprint," breaking from social norms, and lots of colorful commentary about Mrs. Duggar's birth canal are enough. In fact, when you think about it, "carbon footprint" is fancy way of saying "you're having too many children you can afford."

My King James Bible must be a dodgy edition

Yes, the King James Bible is dodgy. I think something like the Online Parallel Bible is an improvement; that way, you can see many translations at once. They really do vary quite a bit.

I have long felt that a peaceful breakup of the nation is the very BEST outcome that we can possibly hope for as we confront our impending demographic doom.

A strict (or if you prefer, particular) reading of the Constitution would have the same effect. America is not conceived therein as a "nation," IIRC. I only dabble now and then in the subject, but America as "nation" seemed to come after the fact. That certainly seems to be the case with regard to the huge monster that is the federal gov't.

Very, very frustrating.

Don't compose your text in Webware. Use a text editor and copy-paste.

Mr. Sailer neglected to include the next parapgraph from Miller's article that makes clear that her concerns stem from feminist principles rather than Jewish anti-Gentile bias. No surprise that the Jew-haters here would jump to the bias conclusion, though.

And since Ashkenazis are dumb, and forthright to a fault, we know she's telling the truth (especially to herself).

And we know smug American & Israeli Haredi fecundity drive Mrs. Miller to apoplexy, because she wrote a long, nasty (prominently displayed) article about it; like most Ashkenazis, she went out of her way to make sure she addressed back yards closest to her own, first and foremost - to ward off any appearance of impropriety.

""Truth said...Hey, at least the Post won't need to hand-ring your readership replacing itself. From what I gather, the fertility rate of the Whiskey-Kudzu Bob-Kylie-Edgy Girl-Maya-Svigor-Josh- Jody sect is about .013 children per capita.""

Sir, it is March. It's foolish to count chickens before September. Right now, they are still eggs. Hundreds of fresh eggs."

The snarky idiot who unironically calls himself "Truth" thinks he can divine how many children people have, or how much money they make, or what educational level they may have attained, based on their anonymous postings (postings which generally do not touch on anything personal to them) on an internet site. However, it is quite possible to reliably determine that "Truth" is a ninconpoop based on what he routinely writes - like his belief in water-powered cars, for example.

>the almost complete kibosh in public discourse over more substantive fertility-related matters. For example, [...] Hispanic fertility<

And yet all the right-thinkes are damn sure that Hispanic numbers in the US are exploding (from immigration and births associated with it) and will soon "tsunami" Republicans - and even the White Race Itself - into history's ash can.

Truth said...""Sir, it is March. It's foolish to count chickens before September. Right now, they are still eggs. Hundreds of fresh eggs."

I hope that works out for you Maya; I was a teen once myself."

Are you implying that a hen must be in her teens to skip around with hundreds of perfectly good eggs in her loins? Ha! Maybe in your family. Among the very few health problems that aren't at all observed in my extended family are those affecting hormones, grands and fertility.

Maternal Grandma's last pregnancy-43, Paternal Grandma's last pregnancy-36, Paternal Great Aunt's last pregnancy-40, Maternal Aunt's last pregnancy-45, Mother's last pregnancy-40. Keep, in mind that none of them wanted to get pregnant let alone took fertility drugs. Yes, old people and the old worlders have stupid methods of contraception. The rhythm method and the pull out method? Come on! At least, the sodomites aren't half-assing their family planning. Of course, most normal people go the condom/pill/implant route, but if you absolutely must get creative... Oh, and among the mentioned above, the kids who didn't get the hanger were born normal and healthy.

Truth said:"Well that's nice, but you have have a nice white Vato that your mother likes and you're over 18 so what's stopping you?"

Ah, Truth... Attractive men are so stubborn, nowadays. You'd be surprised how hard it is to force one out of a condom, if he cares about the quality of life of his future children. It's all "adequate housing and safe neighborhood" this and "stable employment and a little bit of savings" that. So capricious...

Older women had it much easier. For example, Father thought that his youngest son was an accident while that pregnancy was actually planned down to the desired astrology sign. (Hehe- rhythm method shenanigans-hehe.) Anyway, I could always enlist the drug dealer down the block, but he just isn't as sexy as my man. Sigh.

Truth, you sound like an intelligent man with a bit more experience than me. Would you advise a girl who loves babies to go ahead and give an affirmative nod to the drug dealer? I mean, it's not like I'll starve once the bundle of joy arrives. Somebody is bound to pay for all the necessities once the need occurs. Or should I wait a few years for Mr. Neurotic here to feel sufficiently satisfied with trivial stuff like finances, childcare prospects and other silliness? I know, I know, I'm clearly settling if i go for the option #2. He has no sense of adventure. If he did, he'd just help me arrange having that baby on a broken roller coaster ride instead of droning on about healthy pregnancies in lower stress environments. But there is this love thing involved, so what's a girl to do?

"Are you implying that a hen must be in her teens to skip around with hundreds of perfectly good eggs in her loins? Ha! Maybe in your family."

White middle-class people tend to have only the number of children they can afford. This is something a race man cannot seem to comprehend. They also pay the taxes that go to support the families the race men produce. This is something a race man tends not to take into account.

Of course, from an evolutionary standpoint, it's not smart to limit the size of your own family while subsidizing the families of others--especially others with whom you have only tenuous genetic connections.

By the same token, there's no reason for someone to be smug because his people share characteristics with brood-parasitic organisms.

Maya, just be aware that, just because many women can have their last pregnancy after 40, does not mean it's possible or easy for most women to have their first child after 40. It's not the same thing. If you really want kids, wait no later than your very early 30s to start. ANd even that may be pushing your luck.

Kylie you are still angry after all of these months? chill, babe, get your husband, or Kudzu Bob, or both to take you on vacation somewhere with a beach, You saw The Ice Storm, and Jules and Jim, didn't you?

Anyway ladies, I generally refrain from advice on children, as being a father is one thing I did not do well, (there must be something to the genetics thing though, my son is a super-popular honors student.) however, I can give you advice along the lines of Christopher Walken in True Romance:

He comes to Dennis Hopper's house to torture him, and smacks him across the face. He then looks at him intently and says something to the effect of (paraphrase here);

"That' didn't feel good did it? Your eyes started watering, your nose stings, well guess what, THAT'S AS GOOD AS IT GETS, AND IT AIN'T NEVER, GONNA BE THAT GOOD AGAIN!"

This is apropos advice for people wanting kids, once you hit 25 or so, THAT'S AS GOOD AS IT GETS AND IT AIN'T NEVER GONNA BE THAT GOOD AGAIN. So you must decide how important children are to you, then you firmly, yet femininely confide in this to your boyfriend. There is no good time for kids, there is only now. Kids don't need money to have a good upbringing, only good parents. You can raise good kids in a tin-roofed shack if that's what you want to do.

If your boyfriend argues citing money, he probably simply does not really want kids. That is ok, it's time to get a new boyfriend, love is a choice, not a chore.

As far as getting knocked up by the neighborhood drug dealer, why not? If the HBD stuff about the cream rising, and people of like IQs finding each other is true, I say go for it. You'll have the rogueish child that Whiskey wishes he was and all is good.

"Maya, just be aware that, just because many women can have their last pregnancy after 40, does not mean it's possible or easy for most women to have their first child after 40. It's not the same thing. If you really want kids, wait no later than your very early 30s to start. ANd even that may be pushing your luck."

You're right, of course. I always thought I'd start in my mid twenties. Hopefully, the first one will happen before the big three oh. It's just that the needs of those potential children should be considered above my wants. I am fairly certain that I was ready to wake up in the middle of the night and wash poop off someone's little butt since I was 13. That's not the point. A child deserves to be born to parents who are fairly sure of being employed and insured the following year, and to be taken to a safe neighborhood. Among my friends and family, men tend to have even higher standards than women when it comes to proper environment for their future children. My man is typical in this regard. Kids aren't toys. It's not their job to fulfill us, but it's our responsibility to provide and care for them. We decided that if something should happen, we won't terminate. It won't happen, though. From what I understand, 99.9% of accidents are actually negligence, ignorance or deceit.

Maya, I left you a long, Abigal Van Buren worthy response, it didn't seem to pass muster, but the bottom line is; if kids are important to you, have kids, raise them in a trailer in Kentucky if you must, they'll be fine if you will it. If your boyfriend does not think he's "ready" he probably just does not want to have kids, find someone who does. Men (and women) are like busses when you are young, they come along every 5 minutes.

Grasshopper, I love your rendition of "chopsticks", but after 5 years, it may be time to learn a second song, you think?"

You really don't like the fact that some people remember some of the foolish things you have written. That's your problem. My only interest is in alerting newcomers here to just how trustworthy your commentary is. If you write lots of foolish things, you will be branded a fool.

By the way, what kind of mileage are you getting these days.....with water, I mean.

YOU are the fool. When one types "water powered car" into the search engine, he receives NINETEEN MILLION responses. Apparently, I am not the only one who has thought about this. That is why you have spent the last 30 years as a useless paper-pushing grade 12 government bureaucrat with your (supposed) PHD, sucking off the government teat, Ron Paul, instead of actually doing something meaningful.

The status of women in social circles depends more on the guys they are attached to. Women traditionally and naturally dont have status of their own in public/social circle, their status is inferred by the status of their man which is the case historically and is apparent in tradiotional socities and this goes back thousand of years.

Therefore the the work done by women in both high status and low status household is similar, the status differnece is based on the status difference of their men, women's traditional workload of bearing kids, housework and other traditional female oriented work does not give her any more or less status in male centric political and social circles.

Women's traditional work is more fundamental, foundational and a basic necessity for any society just to survive and then to thrive. The current social disposition of increasing status for working women is unnatural, and is an unsustainable situation.

YOU are the fool. When one types "water powered car" into the search engine, he receives NINETEEN MILLION responses."

Right. I'm the fool because I don't believe you can burn water.

So you do indeed believe in water fueled cars, I take it. By the way, when I type the term "Tooth Fairy" into Start page I get 3,399,265 hits. Does that mean that the Tooth Fairy exists? Or does it merely mean that the existence of the Tooth Fairy is about 18% as likely as that of a water-fueled car? Is your faith in site-hit stats as great as the faith you hold in certain entrepreneurs ability to violate the laws of thermodynamics? Do tell - we await the benefit of your high-powered J-school education.

"Apparently, I am not the only one who has thought about this."

I'll concede that, obviously. I've no doubt but that there are many other people who are as credulous and stupid as you are.

"That is why you have spent the last 30 years as a useless paper-pushing grade 12 government bureaucrat with your (supposed) PHD, sucking off the government teat, Ron Paul, instead of actually doing something meaningful."

Once again, you claim to know things about people based on anonymous internet posts. I am neither a government bureacrat, a GS-12, or have I worked for any employer for 30 years. And you have no idea whether or not what I do for a living is meaningful. Your psychic powers are failing you.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.